Civil Litigation - Defendant - ONCA

The moving party, Hermina Developments Inc., sought a stay of an order permitting the respondents to sell a 26.7-acre parcel of land in Woodstock, Ontario, pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a serious issue to be tried, Hermina failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay.

The court held that any losses could be compensated by damages and that the property was not unique.

The respondents were awarded costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal of Kyrle Blake Farmer, who had served as estate trustee and attorney for property for his aunt, Billie Frances Farmer.

The respondents, his brothers, challenged his distributions and expenses.

The application judge found that Billie lacked capacity to provide instructions, that the appellant’s compensation and expenses were not justified, and that he failed to keep proper accounts.

The appellant was ordered to repay significant sums to the estate.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge’s findings or orders and dismissed the appeal with costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal from the denial of certification of a class action alleging systemic negligence in the use of seclusion and restraint at a forensic psychiatric hospital.

The court found that the motion judge did not err in concluding that the claims lacked commonality, as the alleged wrongdoing could only be determined on an individual basis.

The court also upheld the dismissal of claims against individual hospital administrators and affirmed the costs award, finding no reversible error in the motion judge’s analysis.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether arbitrators may order a higher-priority automobile insurer to reimburse a lower-priority insurer for pre-arbitration expenses incurred in handling a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claim, outside the specific circumstances set out in Ontario Regulation 283/95.

The court held that, except in cases of improper deflection as provided in s. 2.1(7) of the regulation, arbitrators do not have authority to order such reimbursement.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the arbitrator’s decision that Unifund was not required to reimburse Echelon for its pre-arbitration expenses.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Garlicky Mediterranean Grill Inc., finding no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s email correspondence did not amount to the exercise of an option to renew the lease.

The court held that the findings below were entitled to deference and awarded costs to the respondent.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal by Judith Lorraine Farrage and Edmund Farrage regarding the accounting and proceeds from three mortgaged properties in Kitchener, Ontario.

The application judge’s acceptance of the respondent’s expert calculations, subject to a property tax adjustment, was upheld.

The Court found no error in the application judge’s approach to interest calculations or in her assessment of damages, and awarded costs of $7,500 to the respondent.

This costs endorsement from the Court of Appeal for Ontario addresses the allocation and quantum of costs following the respondents' success in opposing the appeal.

The court fixes costs at $20,000, apportioned 90% to the group represented by Manson and Fleury, and 10% to the group represented by Overwater, to be paid within 30 days.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of appeals by the Attorney General of Ontario, His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, Alberta Lemon, and the Estate of Barbara Twining, and the allowance of the cross-appeal by the Attorney General of Canada and His Majesty the King in Right of Canada.

The Court orders the Town and the Families to pay costs to the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation and the Town to pay costs to Canada, finding the amounts sought reasonable in light of the complexity and significance of the appeal.

The appellant, Hafeez Fazl, sought a panel review of a single judge's decision to dismiss his appeal for delay.

He also requested an adjournment, initially for a religious pilgrimage, and subsequently on the grounds of being a party under a disability requiring a litigation guardian, citing a 2019 doctor's note.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the adjournment request due to a lack of proper medical or psychiatric evidence and the absence of any application under the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992.

The panel found no error in the original dismissal of the appeal for delay, noting the underlying action had been dismissed on summary judgment as being "without a scintilla of merit" due to previous litigation on the same issues.

The motion for review was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The appellant appealed an order striking his pleadings without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the motion judge's decision, finding her reasons careful and complete, and her articulation of legal principles clear and correct.

The court noted the appellant's self-drafted pleadings were unacceptable and that his later apology and amended drafts were strategic, not genuine.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the quantum of damages awarded in its action for breach of contract regarding contaminated scaffolding equipment.

The trial judge had awarded damages based on a finding that 40% of the scaffolding had to be scrapped due to contamination.

The appellant argued that 100% of the scaffolding should have been deemed valueless.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the conflicting expert evidence.

This is a costs endorsement following an appeal in a family law matter concerning spousal support.

The respondent wife sought full recovery costs of $38,642.47, while the appellant husband sought partial costs of $16,264.29.

The Court of Appeal found that the respondent was largely successful on the contested issues on appeal, particularly in resisting the appellant's argument that the application judge erred in awarding spousal support.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment order dismissing his claim for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge had concluded that the accident was a straightforward rear-end collision and that the appellant, as the rear-ending party, failed to discharge his onus of proving the collision did not arise from his negligence.

The appellant challenged the motion judge's findings on three grounds: improper judicial notice of scientific and technical matters, misapprehension of evidence, and erroneous conclusion that there was no genuine issue requiring trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable error in principle or palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's assessment.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed the dismissal of its application for a declaration that a natural gas supply contract entered into by its former manager was void.

The application judge found the claim was barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the appellant was aware of the facts supporting its claim more than two years before commencing the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, rejecting arguments that the limitation period began only upon a demand letter or that a new claim arose with each monthly invoice.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellants appealed an order enforcing a settlement reflected in minutes of settlement.

They argued that a term requiring execution of a release satisfactory to all parties made the settlement conditional, ambiguous, and unenforceable.

The court rejected those submissions, holding that the motion judge found the parties had agreed to the form of release and that finding was not challenged.

The appeal was dismissed with agreed costs to the respondents.

The appellant, a third mortgagee, appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action for damages for an alleged improvident sale and for an accounting under s. 27 of the Mortgages Act.

The appellant argued the motion judge applied the wrong test, the sale was improvident, and the second mortgagee was not entitled to add the first mortgage payout to its claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the wrong test was applied, the respondent took reasonable precautions to obtain the true market value of the property.

The court also held the respondent was entitled to the payout amount under the doctrine of equitable subrogation.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The respondents were awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The League respondents were awarded $15,000, the City of Ottawa was awarded $5,000, and Miles Wolff was awarded $5,000, all inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The Court of Appeal issued an addendum to its reasons for judgment released on September 7, 2005.

Following correspondence from CGU Insurance Company of Canada, the court amended paragraph 5 of the reasons to clarify that CGU's concession at the hearing was directed specifically to the trial judge's obiter concerning the absence of an explicit forfeiture provision in the instructions to tenderers, and did not relate generally to the trial judge's interpretation of the bid bond.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

On consent of the parties, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a decision refusing to set aside a default judgment issued by the registrar.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the registrar had jurisdiction to sign the judgment as the claim was for a liquidated demand in money.

Furthermore, the appellant failed to explain the circumstances of the default or present a triable defence on the merits.